Letters to the Editor: Wednesday, January 29, 2014

To the editor,Regarding Richard Bradstreet's doctor's ACA requirement that he ask Richard about his guns ("Doctors forced to ask about our guns?" Jan. 26) it appears his doctor is very mistaken.

I have just spent several hours digging through presidential announcements (whitehouse.gov), our national archives (archives.gov) and even (to be fair and balanced) Fox News. Learned a lot.

There are Executive Orders and Executive Actions and the problem, in this case, is confusion caused by the latter. On Jan.16, 2013, President Obama announced an Executive Action regarding Gun Safety after the tragic school shootings that had recently taken place. I am attaching the entire text, from the White House Press Secretary, of what was said. I propose the confusion was caused by misinterpretation and also the great emotion of that horrible time.

From the Executive Action page 5, paragraph 2:

"The Administration is clarifying that no federal law in any way prohibits doctors or other health care providers from reporting their patients' threats of violence to the authorities, and issuing guidance making clear that the Affordable Care Act does not prevent doctors from talking to patients about gun safety."

The government, realizing they were causing confusion, then stated on page 14, paragraph 3.

"Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients' homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms." (emphasis added)

So you can see that while Richard's doctor has a protected right to ask about firearms, it is not a requirement.

Best regards,

Mark BushaAddison

Road funding needs to go to roads of greatest need

To the editor,The decision to use critically limited road funds to repave portions of M-52 while Occidental Highway is crumbling is an illustration of the mismanagement and misguided priorities that have become a signature of state government.

As an MDOT official stated to the Telegram, "The list of projects is not intended to be the projects statewide that have the greatest need."

Rather, $230 million dollars was set aside for lawmakers to use as a personal slush fund to be allocated to pet projects in their districts.

That's not fiscal responsibility. That's political pork.

With the current state of our roads, any and all road funds coming to our community should be used to repair infrastructure with the greatest need.Unfortunately, pork barrel spending has become the acceptable way to spend budget "surpluses" by those in control in Lansing.

We need to hold our elected officials to a higher level of accountability and fiscal responsibility. Taxpayer dollars should be spent on the public good, not repaying political favors.

When I was a state representative, my duty was first and foremost to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars.

Too many in Lansing no longer hold that value.

The time for consulting with the local experts to determine the greatest need in the community was eight months ago — not now.

Had I been in office, my request for road funding would have been based on that consultation.

And if that request were ignored and replaced with something else, I would have demanded that MDOT explain why.

We can and must do better when selecting those who represent us in state government.